Court Forcing Spouse to Testify Unconstitutional.

Status
Not open for further replies.

ItsWeThePeople

New Member
Should comments that a spouse made on a police video be inadmissable? It seems that since a spouse can not be forced to testify against their wife/husband in court that the use of the spouses comments on a police video is in a since the court circumventing the law and forcing the spouse to testify. Using the spouses comments on the video is the same as having the spouse there in court and forcing he/she to testify against their wife/husband. I believe that this should be inadmissable.

"The spousal testimonial privilege (a.k.a. "spousal immunity") can be used to prevent any party in a criminal case from calling the defendant's spouse to testify against the defendant about any topic. In federal court as a matter of common law, this privilege attaches to the witness spouse; that is, the defendant's spouse can refuse to testify against the defendant, but the defendant may not prevent his or her spouse from testifying against the defendant"

Should not this same rule of law apply to the spouses comments on the video? To me its the same as forcing ones spouse to testify unwillingly! Or do the courts decide what is law now days? Are we writing laws from the Bench?
Thanks!
 
Nothing illegal about it. Even without the video, statements made in the officer's presence are in admissible by the officer's testimony.
 
An exception is made in the case of certain crimes - domestic violence being among them.

Was this a DV case?

If not a DV case, the defense can certainly try and argue whether the video should be suppressed due to spousal privilege. Whether they might prevail or not really depends on other factors, and, of course, the status of your state's laws.
 
This isn't a matter of the spouses testifying against each other. A statement was made in the officer's presence and was recorded. The recording is used as evidence regarding the officer's testimony about the conversation. It is a very different situation than having your wife take the stand to speak against you.
 
But, depending on the laws of evidence in the state, the recording may not be allowed as DIRECT testimony if the witness (the spouse) is available to testify. In such a case, the issue of spousal privilege may be raised. I cannot say that it would be successful, but it might be a defense strategy that has some viability.

I have seen cases in California that went south under similar circumstances, hence the reason the nature of the case is important, and the circumstances around the tape and its contents.
 
Right, but the officer's statement about what the wife said to him is certainly admissible. The same video could be offered as a recording of the entire contact, which just happens to include the wife's statement as well.

If I remember correctly, this is stemming from the other recent post about a hit and run. The OP was stopped a short time later for driving a vehicle matching the description of the one involved. The OP denied any knowledge of the hit and run, but apparently the wife said something contrary.
 
This is why the context is necessary - and the rules of evidence in the particular state. What she allegedly told the officer CAN be challenged as hearsay. Whether it can be done successfully or not, who knows. It also depends on what purpose the state statement is entered in as evidence. If to justify the officer's actions, almost certainly, as to a witness statement asserting a husband's guilt, maybe.

Haven't you ever had such statements successfully challenged on the stand as hearsay? I have. It depends on the purpose and the circumstances whether or not it will be allowed. I'd think it has a much better chance of being admitted if the officer recorded the interview in the field during the investigation that if later done in a controlled environment at the station.
 
I just read the previous posts, and apparently it is a video of the contact at the scene of an investigative stop for a hit-and-run and involves statements made by both the husband (the suspect and our OP) and the wife. In such an instance, I would have to concur with MightyMoose that the tape probably WOULD be admissible and would not involve any question of spousal privilege. Now, depending on what is said, a judge may not admit the tape if all it is is rhetoric and unsubstantiated babbling as such might be nothing but inflammatory and not go to the proof of the matter, but if the tape shows contradictions in the statements or tends to point to evidence of guilt, the state may be able to use that tape to at least establish good cause for whatever action the police might have taken.
 
Using statements she made voluntarily to police is not the same as calling her to testify. She could also testify if she agreed to. She holds spousal privilege. If she doesn't assert her privilege she loses it. Just like a suspect has the right to be silent, but if he opens his mouth those statements are admissible, even if he later decides to shut up.

The wife could have and should have invoked her privilege and not made any statements to the police. Once she did she waive privilege for those statements. Sorry man.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top